update_catalog_item

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent update. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like whether partial updates are supported or what the response looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with an essential prerequisite in parentheses. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple update operation with two parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks information about error handling, validation, or what constitutes a successful update, but the annotations partially compensate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'sys_id' and 'fields'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('update') and the resource ('existing catalog item'). It includes a prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_record', the naming and context imply it's for catalog items specifically.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a precondition (WRITE_ENABLED=true) which helps decide when to use. However, it does not provide guidance on when to prefer this over other update tools (e.g., update_change_request, update_incident) or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.